If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Wings wrote:As far as Houston relaying 'real time' trajectory-telemetry data to the Moon Landing Astronaut-Pilot who was piloting the Landing-

If it had been 'real', what time lag would have been expected for this?

Sensors in the Landing Module, broadcasting telemetry/velocity/altitude/descent data to Houston, Houston processes data, interprets it, proved technitions with results, technitions then advise whoever is talking to the Astronaut-Pilot, time for that signal to reach Astronaut Pilot..?

How long a delay would we suppose all this ought to have been?

Considering the fact that rockets couldn't have carried the lander to the moon in the first place, your questions are irrelevant.

Sibrel's unedited, never before broadcast, interview with, now deceased, original moon landing hoax proponent and former contractor to NASA during the Apollo moon missions, Billy Kaysing. Mr. Kaysing discusses his first hand account of the incredible atmosphere of engineering ineptitude, on-the-job drunkenness, and endless insurmountable schedule slippages that were rampant in the program, dooming it to failure. "The only way to make it, was to fake it", he said was the underground motto of the staff.

Xious wrote:I didn't see this interview linked in this thread yet so here ya go:

Bill Kaysing Interview (Never Broadcast) 1 hour

Description: Published on Apr 14, 2013

Sibrel's unedited, never before broadcast, interview with, now deceased, original moon landing hoax proponent and former contractor to NASA during the Apollo moon missions, Billy Kaysing. Mr. Kaysing discusses his first hand account of the incredible atmosphere of engineering ineptitude, on-the-job drunkenness, and endless insurmountable schedule slippages that were rampant in the program, dooming it to failure. "The only way to make it, was to fake it", he said was the underground motto of the staff.

Good interview, many good arguments against the moon landing I hadn't heard before.

I don't want to derail this thread but what do you think about the alleged death of Thomas Baron (who made a negative report on NASA)? It is described at least 3 times around 11:47 and 17:30. Bill Kaysing thinks Baron was murdered. Baron's car stalled at a railway crossing and the train hit the car, killing Baron and his wife. Sounds like a risky plan if you want to silence someone: you have to stop the car at the right spot and prevent the passengers from getting out. There must have been simpler ways to silence him, and I don't think they had a reason to kill the wife too (and his stepdaughter according to Wikipedia). Why did they have to silence him, when General Samuel Cochran Phillips, top man at the Apollo program wrote similar things? For example the "philips report" that was disclosed to the public around the same time. Maybe the military wanted this information believed by everyone, so they needed 2 "opposing" sources, but why? Because it made the program appear more real than it actually was (even for conspiracy theorists)? Note that Kaysing said he believed Baron because he was killed.What makes more sense to me is that Thomas Baron either was a sim or that he and his family were given a new identity after this event. I admit I am influenced by Miles Mathis' latest articles about faked deaths.Even if this were true, it doesn't discredit Kaysings work.But it should be mentioned that he believed in satellites. In the interview he talks about Tetra Satellites.

Some observations: Bill Kaysing is wearing blue and white stripes.According to the description, the video is unedited and this is corroborated by the many repetitions; Yet the recording is not continuous.For example, at 9:07, before Bart asks he question "what gave you that idea?" and Kaysing told why he wrote the book, there is obviously a part missing, so that we don't know what "that" is. So if the film was unedited, the camera was stopped without explanation (intentional because it is after Kaysing stopped talking).I made a few edits after I posted this put now I will leave it.

Yeah, it's hard to judge for me because I think he was legit, but you make excellent points for those that suspect something about him. However, if you find someone gives you what you consider both believable and unbelievable information, I would hope you would look deeply at that person.

For example, Baron being murdered by a train accident? Seems very far fetched, doesn't it? There are flukes as well, and when someone very interesting dies due to a fluke, we are tempted to say it was some kind of arranged death. Maybe it was an accident. However, if Baron was threatened first, would that make a difference? Your call. Maybe Baron never existed. It's not up to you to believe anything.

Alex Jones gives some good information, but how is it presented? Was Kaysing ever fairly promoted by any sort of media? We ought to get a hold of that Wired magazine article about him and see if it was done like the embarrassing "conspiracy" shows on History Channel and the like — made primarily to discredit them.

There is also the possibility that Kaysing had no idea how thick the skin of the fakery really is, in which case he would not be able to discern which of his colleagues were worthy of his trust. If you believe his writings, Kaysing believed in satellites and JFK's murder and we can presume he also believed in the Kent State Massacre and every other major PsyOp of his era. For Kaysing, the moondoggle was probably just the most obvious to him because he was looking at it from his own experience in the work environment that created it, and he may not have had reason to suspect there were so many PsyOps.

We have seen this pattern before, where people who have questioned the Jewish Holocaust, the Titanic, the Beatles, the Kennedy family mysteries and so on cannot bring themselves to comment on any other PsyOp.

CluesForum and other major revisionists might just be a strange new historic precedent — taking all the evidence of various hoaxes together and appreciating them as a scientifically observable phenomenon of human deception. More people probably don't know Kaysing because Kaysing stuck strictly to what he knew. However, he did speculate in the book "We Never Went To The Moon" that there was a much larger simulation. Perhaps he didn't know what to make of his hunch and he extrapolated it to a grand cosmic version — like an early New Age sort of response — but due to his seemingly strong "pragmatism" I expect he could not allow himself to go further than that. Indeed, we all have our limits to speculation.

Needless to say, though blue and white stripes are making appearances in modern PsyOps, we have to admit that stripes have been fashionable for a long time and are not likely to go away just because they are being used to dress sims. Does Kaysing look like a sim? No.

"Unedited" is obviously a lie, though. I am not sure what meaning of the word "unedited" they intend us to take away from that quip.

Seneca wrote:I don't want to derail this thread but what do you think about the alleged death of Thomas Baron (who made a negative report on NASA)? It is described at least 3 times around 11:47 and 17:30. Bill Kaysing thinks Baron was murdered. Baron's car stalled at a railway crossing and the train hit the car, killing Baron and his wife. Sounds like a risky plan if you want to silence someone: you have to stop the car at the right spot and prevent the passengers from getting out. There must have been simpler ways to silence him, and I don't think they had a reason to kill the wife too (and his stepdaughter according to Wikipedia). Why did they have to silence him, when General Samuel Cochran Phillips, top man at the Apollo program wrote similar things? For example the "philips report" that was disclosed to the public around the same time. Maybe the military wanted this information believed by everyone, so they needed 2 "opposing" sources, but why? Because it made the program appear more real than it actually was (even for conspiracy theorists)? Note that Kaysing said he believed Baron because he was killed.

I haven't given it much thought but you make a good point. I've never read the 500 page report so I have nothing to go on. It is possible that Bart Sibrel has a copy of the 500 page version. His email address is: bartsibrel@yahoo.com

After a bit of a search, I found some info to consider:

On his own, Mr. Baron began to assemble a more thorough report (about 500 pages long, according to Baron) in which he apparently hoped to document his charges of safety violations. After the Apollo 1 fire, he delivered his report to the Congressional committees investigating the incident. He also testified before a subcommittee headed by Rep. Olin Teague (D-TX).

The investigation after the fire pitted North American against NASA. If either one of them appeared clearly at fault, the other would likely be exonerated. NASA charged that NAA had been negligent in building the spacecraft and filling it with flammable items. NAA charged that NASA demanded far too many changes in the design without giving NAA time to accommodate them, and unsafely operated the spacecraft with a high-pressure oxygen environment, and that the flammable items had been demanded by NASA's astronauts and therefore could not be easily refused.

If we dig a big deeper, we find that Thomas Baron was merely a pawn in a much larger political game. Sen. Walter Mondale (D-MN), an avowed opponent of NASA and space exploration, used the Apollo 1 hearings to reopen the question of whether Apollo was a prudent use of the nation's resources, and arranged for Baron's testimony precisely because he thought it would illustrate the waste and mismanagement at NASA and its contractors.

Kaysing: I believe that Thomas Ronald Baron was murdered because he had the truth to tell about the Apollo project.

Mr. Baron collected reports of discrepant action from both named and anonymous sources, but in each case someone who actually witnessed the action would have to testify to it in order for that testimony to be valid in shaping public policy.

Baron's untimely death complicates matters because he would have been the logical person to receive the report after Congress was finished with it. NASA couldn't have destroyed it because NASA never had custody of it. It went from Thomas Baron's hands to Congress's hands. North American never had custody of it either. With no one to claim it, and with its usefulness to Congress limited to supplying names of future witnesses, and with an abbreviated version already part of the record and acknowledged by North American, there simply was no compelling reason to keep it around.

And it's reasonable to expect North American to defend itself against unfair allegations in the press, especially at the hands of one of their employees who might be afforded greater credibility.

Mr. BARON: Location wise, I worked at pad 34 on the complex and on the gantry. I have worked at pad 16, which is prepressure test facility, propulsion test facility. I have worked in the life support area, I have worked in receiving inspection, I have worked in the site lab or computer room, as we call it. It is a test troubleshooting area, and I have worked at the MSOB [i.e., Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. --Clavius] right here at the high bay area on the floor.

I believe that North American Aviation was very interested in Baron's 500-page report. In December, Baron confided to a fellow hospital patient that he was being followed. The ramblings of a madman? Maybe. But before he died, someone broke into his trailer and turned things upside down but didn't take anything. That information comes from a close relative of Baron. And the night he died, a carload of men went through his trailer. That info comes from a next-door neighbor. And after the accident, the trailer was sealed and guarded by law enforcement. Why? It wasn't a crime scene. Baron's landlord had to get an attorney to get into his own trailer to shut the windows. that info from the landlord himself. Seems to me someone was very interested in what Baron was working on.

hoi.polloi wrote:For example, Baron being murdered by a train accident? Seems very far fetched, doesn't it? There are flukes as well, and when someone very interesting dies due to a fluke, we are tempted to say it was some kind of arranged death. Maybe it was an accident. However, if Baron was threatened first, would that make a difference? Your call. Maybe Baron never existed. It's not up to you to believe anything.

Kaysing adds at 17:50 that despite Florida law, they were not autopsied and promptly cremated. Together with the info Xious dug up*, this makes a fluke very unlikely. My first guess is that Baron staged his own death.Edit: *we should find the source of Xious latest citation beyond someone mentioning this on a forum.

Last edited by Seneca on Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thus, the murder of Thomas Baron would serve no useful purpose, and look unnecessarily suspicious. The story of Thomas Baron is indeed a sad one, but it is by no means evidence in favor of a lunar landing hoax.

Maybe they're all characters in this silly theater? (Fake) Baron's death maybe just a threat to anyone who wants to speak up? " Shut the fuck up or we'll set you up to die and get away with it!" Just a random thought.

AmongTheThugs wrote:Maybe they're all characters in this silly theater? (Fake) Baron's death maybe just a threat to anyone who wants to speak up? " Shut the fuck up or we'll set you up to die and get away with it!" Just a random thought.

Yes, it could have been theater, and scaring people would be one of the benefits.Even Baron's irretrievable 500 page report could have been a hoax. He had made it after he was fired by NAA. How could he have access to the site or interview the employees? Did he use his old notes and records, that probably were the property of his former employer? Then he couldn't have written about the Apollo 1 fire, wich happend after he was fired (and could also have been a hoax).

Yes. That report was based on discussions among historians that occurred in about 2002 but was ultimately revealed to be little more than hearsay. Investigative journalist Gary Corsair reports the findings of the Florida Highway Patrol, and has uncovered no evidence of suicide.

A suicide is more suspicious than an accident. Since his wife was also killed it would actually be murder. How would such a rumor start? Why would NASA defenders use this? Stupidity? Maybe but here is another hypothesis: an inside joke by the people who knew his death was faked. Because it would be closer to the truth than all the other explanations.Edit: corrected stupidity

Last edited by Seneca on Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For every hoax there has to be a public point of dissent. If an astronaut gets religion and wants to tell the truth who does he go to? The hoaxers need it to be one of them so the astronaut can be quickly "accidented". The astronaut goes to the one he has heard about.

Something I noticed about Kaysing, and the modern ones like Sibrel and that young Australian YouTube guy, is that their exposing always leaves open the possibility of other US space travel outside of their main exposure, or even promotes the existence of other space travel.

Having said that, whoever Kaysing was, I am grateful to him and those like him in other fields - it's usually they who give me my revelation and start my education in that field.